Arnold

'These Are Not Serious People'

Joe Mathews — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:16:00 -0400

That's how California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today characterized opponents of the six measures that were part of last month's budget deal and go before voters in the May 19 special election.

Schwarzenegger made plain in a speech at the Commonwealth Club that, despite sagging approval ratings, he intends to campaign strongly for the package of six measures.

He also revealed a tough political strategy: go negative against opponents of the package and particularly the spending limit and rainy day fund measure, Prop 1A. In the speech, Schwarzenegger depicted those opponents as out of the mainstream, "the far left" (who want to spend) and "the far right." He was not kind. Consider this excerpt:

In a blast at members of his own party, he said: "Those who say that we could balance the budget through spending cuts alone are guilty of political cynicism at its worst. These are not serious people."

That's right, the governor of California effectively declared that much of the Republican establishment, a majority of GOP legislators and the two of the three GOP candidates for governor in 2010 (Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman) "are not serious people." That's a bit much, but their opposition to taxes in this circumstance is certainly unserious. It appears that the third GOP candidate, former Congressman and Schwarzenegger finance director Tom Campbell, has the governor's endorsement. If he wants it.

As for the Democrats, he called them hippies and said they don't know math. "Those who say we could balance the budget through tax increases alone reveal their total economic ignorance and lack of math skills. Their grasp of economics must come from living on a hippie commune."

And there was this classic piece of Arnold rhetoric, as an explanation for why a rainy day fund is needed: "Many of you probably have a pet. At my house, we have dogs, and I'm the one in charge of feeding them every morning. If I put outa whole week's worth of food, they would eat it all and not have anything to eat for the rest of the week. Dog food, tax revenues -- it's the same thing. Perhaps that's not a good example. Some smart-aleck reporter will say that I compared the legislature to my Labradors. But I love my Labradors."

No, governor, this smart-aleck blogger wouldn't say that. He'd say that you said you love your Labs, and left your feelings about the legislature to the imagination.

Arnold Hearts Constitutional Convention

Joe Mathews — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:38:00 -0500

He explains why to George Skelton. The governor is interested in looking at changes to the requirement of a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass a budget. But he also wants to transform the executive branch, which wasn't on the agenda of many folks attending this week's summit in Sacramento on the idea. Schwarzenegger wants to get rid of the independently elected constitutional officers -- the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the controller, the treasurer -- who sometimes make it hard for him to administer the government.

As a policy matter, Schwarzenegger has a point. There'd be more accountability if the governor could appoint the people in those roles. As a political matter, Schwarzenegger may have hurt the convention effort by saying that. Opponents of the idea will deride the convention as a power grab by a governor whose approval rating is at 33 percent in a new poll.

Arnold Digs at Jerry Brown

Joe Mathews — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:55:00 -0400

The current governor and the once (and future?) governor have had a warm relationship, campaigning together for municipal finance protections and against changes in the state's three strikes law. But Monday, during a long Schwarzeneggerian soliloquy at a Riverside event to promote his rainy day fund proposal, the governor took a shot at Brown in response to a question from a Southern California Gas official about the state's infrastructure problems. Here's the direct Arnold quote in the transcript, in full context:

"Well, California for 40 years has not really rebuilt our infrastructure in water, so we have now the stuff that was done under Governor Brown from the '60s. Not Jerry Brown, but Pat Brown, because Jerry Brown did not build infrastructure. They stopped building infrastructure when Reagan came in and so Pat Brown was the last one that built infrastructure. And so, since then our population has gone from 18 million to 38 million but we haven't built any new infrastructure. So, you still have the same water delivery system, we still have the same amount of reservoirs that are now between 50 and 75 percent down. We're running out of water, so there's a major problem."

Arnold Gives Another $700K of His Own for Redistricting

Joe Mathews — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:07:00 -0400

If Californians see the petition circulators outside their grocery stores smiling this week, you'll know the reason: Gov. Schwarzenegger. The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert is first to report that the governor has kicked in another $700,000 to the redistricting initiative. As reported here first Sunday, the per-signature price paid to gatherers goes up, from $2 to $2.25 this week, making it the best-paying of the three major measures still on the street.

This continues Schwarzenegger's pattern of putting his money where his mouth is. For all of the criticism he's received for his more than $100 million in fundraising since launching his political career in 2003, Schwarzenegger has been the number one donor to his own career -- more than $25 million -- and most of that money has been spent not on his own election but on ballot measures to advance his agenda. Governing has never been so expensive in California.

Street Economy: Arnold's Redistricting Struggling

Joe Mathews — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:55:00 -0400

Here's an up-to-the-minute report from the streets of California: Gov. Schwarzenegger's redistricting ballot initiative appears to be struggling to attract enough signatures on the street, but it's unclear if the problem is lack of voter interest, hoarding by signature gatherers expecting a price increase, or some combination of the two.

This weekend, gatherers were told to turn in the current petitions they have for redistricting, three gatherers told me this afternoon. Signatures on these are worth $2 per signature. The idea behind the turn-in is to fight hoarding. (Unless you issue new versions of a petition -- either with a different letter on the sheet or in a different color paper, gatherers will hold onto signatures until sponsors raise the per-signature price) A new version of the redistricting petition -- same initiative but different color paper -- will be issued this week. Signatures on that new version will be paying $2.25 a signature, the gatherers have been told. The price increase suggests that the redistricting initiative is still seriously short of signatures, and time is running short to get the measure qualified for the November ballot.

In contrast, the anti-same sex marriage initiative appears to have enough signatures, according to gatherers. Sponsors of that initiative have ordered a "final turn in" for tonight. Those sigs are worth $1.40 or $1.50 per signature. Initiatives on victims rights ($2) and alternative fuels ($1.90) continue to circulate.

Thursday Round Up: A Look at a Petition Firm

Joe Mathews — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:59:00 -0400

DEPARTMENT OF MOON HOWLING: The Las Vegas Review & Journal takes a long look at one of the country's more important signature firms, National Voter Outreach and its CEO Rick Arnold. I've interviewed Arnold in his Carson City home, and found him to be one of the more thoughtful people in the petition trade, critical of its problems and clear-eyed about its limitations. This story is built heavily around criticism from the liberal/progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which is quick to lable signature gathering as corrupt (at least in cases where it opposes the cause in question). There is a "shocked, shocked" quality to this criticism. The signature gathering business has plenty of problem workers, many of them poorly trained folks who, for lifestyle reasons, have taken a job that usually pays them in cash. But BISC and other critics invariably propopse to criminalize the process of gathering signatures, as in Oklahoma. In supporting these restrictions, liberals are hurting themselves, by establishing precedents restricting political speech that can be used by their political opponents. And such restrictions don't stop direct democracy. They merely slow it down, adding to the costs (and thus the influence of interest groups) that progressives love to denounce. The more you regulate, the more firms like National Voter Outreach will benefit.

BLOOMIE AND ARNOLD: Mike Bloomberg, deepening his involvement in California initiative politics, hosts a fundraiser tonight on behalf of Gov. Schwarzenegger's redistricting ballot initiative. It's still gathering signatures on the street.

MICHIGAN POT: Medical marijuana initiative makes the ballot in Michigan after legislature declines to adopt the measure itself. (hat tip to Ballotpedia).

INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: A ballot initiative to establish an individual mandate for health care in Michigan is now circulating on the street.

NO ANIMAL CONFINEMENT MEASURE IN COLORADO: Colorado's ballot will be a little less crowded, as animal rights advocates drop their farm animal confinement measure. The state legislature passed legislation similar enough to satisfy the initiative's backers.

OAKLAND YOUTH: Here's an interesting report on a city of Oakland (Calif.) ballot initiative to double funding for a youth services program.

NEVADA NEUTRALITY: School superintendents, never fan of teachers' union, are staying out of a coming mega-ballot war in Nevada over the union's effort to raise taxes on gaming to generate more funds for education.

MAINE DEBATE: A referendum question has been submitted in Maine that would remove "sexual orientation" from human rights and discrimination law, and bar same-sex marriage and adoption by gay couples.

PARENTAL NOTIFICATION: Here's a description of another attempt, via California blalot initiative, to require parental notification for minors seeking abortions. A similar initiative went down in the 2005 special election. Over the past week, I found this initiative was a low priority for the state's signature gatherers. It's pay $1 or less a signature, half the price being paid by sponsors of redistricting, crime victims' rights, and alternative fuel measures.

FROM OVERSEAS: Croatians won't get to vote on their country's decision to join NATO.

Nunez Says He's Working on Political Reforms for Ballot

Joe Mathews — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:28:00 -0400

Given the last several years' experience, redistricting supporters should take this with a Mt. Wilson of salt, but California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez says he's working with Republicans on a package of constitutional reforms -- redistricting, a term limits extension, and a fundraising ban during certain parts of the legislative calendar -- that could go on the November ballot. Legislative leaders have had several chances in recent chances to support redistricting -- including last year, when they might have gained more support for a term limits extension if they had paired with redistricting -- but couldn't do it. A redistricting ballot initiative, backed by the governor and good government groups, is on the street gathering signatures, and Democrats have been criticizing it. One wonders if this isn't a trial balloon designed to hurt that measure.